Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 years, 7 months ago to Science
For the climate deniers south of the 49th. parallel.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Climate Progress is the Global Warming propaganda arm of Think Progress.
Think Progress is a wholly owned megaphone of Dread King George Soros.
"Denier" is an ad hominem.
And you, sir, are a troll.
Please find another site to engage in your agit-prop and harassment.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?...
Do you not believe because of your colder snowier than normal (record breaking) winter?
Our government in Canada rejects climate change because if they acknowledge it then they would have much more work to do justifying the Bituminous Sands (Not tar or oil) in Alberta
How much globular warming is caused by nitrogen outgassing?
Nitrogen's chemical properties are irrelevant to my question.
So Nitrogen outgassing doesn't contribute to globular warming. Why aren't you panicked that our atmosphere is getting thinner and thinner with all this outgassing???
No, I do not believe that my colder snowier than "normal" winter is caused by the Earth getting warmer.
What is "normal"? What's happened in the past 10 years? How about the past 6 months?
My winter is not colder than normal, however.
A primer by the union of concerned scientists.
why cannot you agree that people calling themselves such, value feelings and consensus over scientific method?
They were started in the late 60s as an anti-war movement. They aggressively advocate for laws and regulations. They are against GMOs and nuclear power- both technological advances that have great benefit to the population. They are Luddites with an agenda and political purpose. I like to get my facts from scientists who do not have an agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZj0L9TEu...
There's a link back at you, from the NIPCC...
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative...
If they have a water issue, that's their fault.
There's one and a quarter quintillion tons of water on the planet. If there are water shortages, it's the fault of socialists who'd rather wring their hands than see technology solve problems.
http://youtu.be/jXM3eMqQrwY
Merry Christmas... Sincerely
Every drop of water in your body at one time was in the ocean. Where do you think the Himalayas get the water they allegedly provide? Where do you think that water ends up? Before it evaporates and lands on the mountains as rain or snow?
Here's an idea. To reduce the percentage of the world's population dependent upon Himalayan water... forcibly relocate the populations of those densely populated countries. That's why the Himalayas provide the water for so great a percentage of the population.
EDIT: reworded last line to make my meaning clearer.
Yes and as the Himalayas melt away as the Glaciers in North America are doing where does that water end up my friend? In the ocean. And it stays there in vast saline quantities for thousands of years before it gets evaporated into the atmosphere and falls again onto lands so dry that it evaporates again almost immediately or it falls onto tilled agricultural lands and washes away more nutrients creating even more unfertile soil.
Your perspective sir is flawed.
http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.asp...
I'm not surprised that you can't recognize sarcasm when it's directed at you. You used a BS stat, I gave you a BS solution for that BS stat.
The Himalayas are not melting away.
The glaciers in North America are not melting away, more's the pity. They melt, more arable land to farm.
Yeah, the water ONLY rains on deserts...
Yeah, the soil in Iowa and Nebraska is so unfertile. Just don't tell the farmers.
In order for the rain to stay in the oceans for millennia, it would have to NOT RAIN for millennia. Water evaporates from the ocean every day (thank goodness for globular warming!) and is deposited around the world.
Who cares?
We
Are
Man
We can build desalinization plants and pipe the fresh water to where it's needed... if we A) had the willpower and B) were allowed to kill all the socialist pieces of crap who keep pretending that Mankind is a plague on the world and therefore stand in the way.
What you just said was, "Let Nestle sell the oceans."
I see no problem with that.
I hope this isn't what free enterprise is supposed to look like.
Science deals in theory, i.e. our best current understanding; not truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith.
So, a better question would be, do you believe that the current understanding has merit.
The answer to that is, no, I do not.
I think the current understanding is thoroughly driven by politics,
See Lysenko-Minchurism, and then go troll elsewhere.
I have said nothing about faith, you have.
You believe that Science is Truth: That is faith.
I believe that Science presents theories and I evaluate those theories on their merits and make my own decisions.
To be fair Eudaimonia you did say "truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith." It is natural to assume that you think that truth can only be found through faith.
Not according to Mr. Reardon. LOL!
Your side keeps claiming a "consensus" among scientists on globular warming, where there is none. An example of that kind of propaganda is found in Atlas Shrugged where the consensus of the world's "best" metallurgists is that Rearden Metal is dangerous.
(which it is... socially dangerous).
Oh, another newsflash... bumblebees can't fly.
explain any ice age. a theory that cannot explain the most obvious facts, is not valid in science. science is not consensus.
Humans excrete about 30 billions tonnes of CO2 a year... On a good year volcanoes emit 300 million (1%) of human emissions.
This was one of many wrong claims by Al Gore.
Actually, using the 'data' available, by smoothing lines on charts going back a few hundred thousand years, there are regular ups and downs in temperature with an average cycle of about 10,000 years. The CO2 curve appears to precede (to lead) the global temperature curve by about 900 years. This is incongruous if global warming was due to more CO2, but consistent with what is known about CO2 density in sea water, increasing temperature causes lower CO2 density. The correct correlation is thus higher temperature causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.
On solubility, yes there is irregular behavior of various gasses in various liquids perhaps related to surface tension, compounds which change with temperature, and energy at the molecular level. Even the concept of 'things that happen' is not solid, ie data. A relevant example is how NASA and various other government agencies in several countries manage to revise temperature records so as to support prevailing policies.
I tell you what.. you stand in a crowded room.
Then stand on the lip of an active volcano.
Tell me which one killed you first.
(hint, it's the one spewing the poisonous gasses).
Apples to apples (while holding my tongue...)
Anyway, I just heard from the union of concerned plants and vegetables, and they say...
"WHOO HOO! THANKS FOR ALL THE CO2!"
Croplands emit more oxygen than do "rain forests", (aka, jungles) and without the CO cloud overhead. They also raise the albedo of the planet, which "rainforests" fail to do. Similarly with "wetlands" (aka swamps) when we reclaim them for crop production.
(Croplands are caused by humans, btw).
You should be offended too, seeing that lately you like to spend every free available moment you have hanging out with people who are inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand and believe in pursuing liberty and free-enterprise solutions to the problems we face.
You believe in climate change? Cool. Don’t most some stupid article from ThinkProgress that often spends it’s time berating people in society like us, instead, post links to solutions geared- products and innovations that are on the cutting edge of what the mind of man can come with. Otherwise...
quit wasting our time.
What do you think caused the "runaway" greenhouse effect on Venus? They're still pumping S2O4 and CO2 into the atmosphere...
For another link -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
To evaluate the claim, you need to know the present height of the statue above sea level, and the rate at which ocean levels are rising over the past 50 odd years say 2.8mm per year.
and read the comments.
National Geographic benefits from the scare, it is part of the problem.
Each change in pH represents a 10 fold change in acidification:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/noaa_...
CO2+H2O <> H2CO3
When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is produced via the reaction:
H2CO3 <> {H+] + HCO3
This carbonic acid dissociates in the water, releasing hydrogen ions and bicarbonate:
[H+]+[CO32-] <> [HCO3-]
[H+] represents a single positive H ion and so on
The increase in the hydrogen ion concentration causes an increase in acidity, since acidity is defined by the pH scale, where pH = -log [H+] (so as hydrogen increases, the pH decreases). This log scale means that for every unit decrease on the pH scale, the hydrogen ion concentration has increased 10-fold.
One result of the release of hydrogen ions is that they combine with any carbonate ions in the water to form bicarbonate:
This removes carbonate ions from the water, making it more difficult for organisms to form the CaCO3 they need for their shells.
The oceans are not, in fact, acidic, but slightly basic.
Acidity is measured using the pH scale, where 7.0 is defined as neutral, with higher levels called "basic" and lower levels called "acidic".
Historical global mean seawater values are approximately 8.16 on this scale, making them slightly basic.
To put this in perspective, pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral), whereas household bleach has a pH of 12 (highly basic) and battery acid has a pH of zero (highly acidic).
However, even a small change in pH may lead to large changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystem functioning. Over the past 300 million years, global mean ocean pH values have probably never been more than 0.6 units lower than today (6). Ocean ecosystems have thus evolved over time in a very stable pH environment, and it is unknown if they can adapt to such large and rapid changes.
The albedo of a vegetated surface determines how much shortwave energy is absorbed or reflected, however, it is not an exact indication
of local climate. Other physical factors of
vegetation such as canopy height, surface
roughness, and soil moisture affect local surface temperature, humidity and energy fluxes.The albedo and surface temperature
associated with various land covers differ latitudinally and seasonally although 28%
reforestation and afforestation occurring within
the Eastern U.S. would probably cause local cooling. You really should take a lesson in basic ecology and soils. http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bit...
As for the apples to apples I was only pointing out that trying to use volcanic activity to explain rising temps and CO2 is also a red herring. However comparing a crowded room to standing at an active volcanoes edge. Well there is a science study you can take part in. Phhht.
Or that croplands are "rougher" than jungles?
local surface temperatures, humidity and energy fluxes are NOT the planet's albedo.
You want to pretend global warming. As the planet's albedo goes up, it reflects more light energy into space, and absorbs less. Globally, not locally.
http://www.climate4you.com/
click on 'Sea Ice' then 'NSIDC recent Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent'
You can see the charts show that the 2013/14 extent of Arctic sea ice is slightly below the long term average (years 1981 to 2010) and above that of year 2012/13.
For the Antarctic, ice coverage 2013/14 is more than last year (2012/13), both year's being above the long term average.
Since about 1998, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing, and global average surface temperatures have decreased. Thus this evidence, among much other, effectively falsifies the proposition that more carbon dioxide warms the globe.
Sorry this is the sea ice link I meant on the previous post.
1. The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by sea and thus the warming sea has no affect. It also reflects much of the solar radiation back into the upper reaches of the troposphere. and it is a couple kilometers thick (Think Ice Age). Different than the Arctic where the floating sea ice melts seasonally more and more as the water and atmosphere are warmed it melts the ice. It has a much faster compound effect on the speed of change. You should also know that the mass of the sea ice is drastically reducing as well in the Arctic it is getting thinner. This cold dense melt water has a profound effect on the Thermohaline currents of the oceans which have a huge affect on the jet stream which have a huge effect on local climate. The thermocline is also responsible for transporting nutrients Zooplankton and Phytoplankton (which provides almost half of the oxygen we breathe) and mixing of the water.
2. Antarctic is mountainous and the higher you go the colder it gets. Things will change much slower in Antarctica... That is expected. Ice over land reacts much different than ice over water to temp change. And the mass of Antarctic Ice is much greater than Arctic ice.
So, it is 'scientifically proven' that there is undoubted climate change (warming), that the warming is fast and calamitous in the Arctic (ignore big-corporate funded data showing more ice) and warming is slow in the Antarctic despite the expected big-corporate data showing cooling. There are things happening here that are not for the public good.
This comes from (referenced) the site you sent me and shows clearly the long term decline in Arctic sea ice. You have to observe the long term trend, otherwise as you have demonstrated your results are skewed and no self respecting scientist would agree with your conclusion.. Like me.
Sorry.. sent the wrong link by accident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzi...
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-mo...